When looking at the book of mormon, there are some obvious flaws with it's historical accuracy. There are cities talked about in north america with millions of ppl and great wars fought, yet no artifacts or signs of these settlements. There are recordings of certain metals used in eras they weren't used in, cattle that weren't around yet, cloths that weren't invented yet, etc etc.
I can look at that and know that the Book of Mormon isn't a historical book, even though it claims to be. It is not the word of God, as it claims to be.
We can see the same logic applied to many creation myths like that of the Greek gods etc. It's no wonder ppl like Richard Dawkins think religion is rubbish, especially when it comes to the bible. There is so much evidence that the earth is older then 6k years, and so much evidence that we evolved, that, in the same way we can study the acuracy of the Book of Mormon, we can tell that the literal reading of Genesis isn't historically true.
The answer to this is quite simple. Genesis is not meant to be read literally, but rather, as allegory to express theological truths.
It's often said that if Genesis isn't literal, that if there was no original sin as described in the creation accounts, then the rest of Christian theology lies in shambles. But I see it the other way around. If Genesis must be taken literally for the rest of the bible to be true, then, just like the Book of Mormon, it can't be the word of God.
So back to my original question. Is genesis supposed to be taken literally, putting the bible on the shelf with the rest of the myths and false religions? Or is genesis supposed to be read for it's theological truths, and not as science, which would keep the validity of the bible intact, and allow it to be true?
I can look at that and know that the Book of Mormon isn't a historical book, even though it claims to be. It is not the word of God, as it claims to be.
We can see the same logic applied to many creation myths like that of the Greek gods etc. It's no wonder ppl like Richard Dawkins think religion is rubbish, especially when it comes to the bible. There is so much evidence that the earth is older then 6k years, and so much evidence that we evolved, that, in the same way we can study the acuracy of the Book of Mormon, we can tell that the literal reading of Genesis isn't historically true.
The answer to this is quite simple. Genesis is not meant to be read literally, but rather, as allegory to express theological truths.
It's often said that if Genesis isn't literal, that if there was no original sin as described in the creation accounts, then the rest of Christian theology lies in shambles. But I see it the other way around. If Genesis must be taken literally for the rest of the bible to be true, then, just like the Book of Mormon, it can't be the word of God.
So back to my original question. Is genesis supposed to be taken literally, putting the bible on the shelf with the rest of the myths and false religions? Or is genesis supposed to be read for it's theological truths, and not as science, which would keep the validity of the bible intact, and allow it to be true?
